Old answers don’t get to stay wrong
Every answer you have ever given is aging. When the truth moves, the people you told keep acting on the old version — unless something circles back.
In March you told a partner that offline mode ships in the spring. You believed it; it was true when you said it. In June the plan changed — offline mode now ships next month, behind a flag. Your briefing got updated, your team got told, the roadmap page is correct. The partner, meanwhile, is still building their rollout around spring, because the answer they hold is the one you gave them in March, and nothing in your stack has any idea they hold it.
Nobody lied. The truth moved, the way product truth constantly does — a date slips, a limit changes, a feature ships early. Every answer anyone has ever given is aging this way, and the people who received those answers keep acting on them at full confidence. Of all the costs of being the one who knows, this one is the most purely invisible: a wrong answer you have already been thanked for.
The corrections nobody owns
Teams that are diligent about updating documentation almost never have a practice for updating people, and the reason is mechanical rather than moral: correcting someone requires remembering that they were told, and that record doesn’t exist. The March answer lives in a DM thread, a call that’s now a transcript nobody will reopen, an email with four people cc’d. Which claims did you make to whom, in which month? Nobody can enumerate their own outstanding answers — so the diligent update the document and quietly hope everyone re-reads it, which nobody does, because nobody re-checks answers they already have.
Notice the asymmetry: the document gets a correction process, while the answers derived from it — the form the knowledge actually traveled in — get abandoned at the moment of delivery. The stale wiki page at least sits where a maintainer might trip over it. The stale answer is out there compounding in someone else’s plans — a partner’s rollout, a seller’s live deal, a page on your website quoting last quarter’s limit.
A record of what was said
The fix has a hard precondition, which is why it has stayed unfixed: you need receipts. An answerer has to keep a record of what it told people — the claim, the person, the date, and which briefing line the claim stood on. Humans don’t keep this record; it would be creepy diligence in a person. For a Deputy it is just bookkeeping — every answer already cites its line, so the ledger of who-was-told-what builds itself as a side effect of answering honestly.
The record earns its keep the day you edit the briefing. Change a line — the date, the limit, the shipped feature — and your Deputy re-reads its ledger against the change and hands you a list: who is holding an answer that just went stale, where they got it, and when. Two people were told the old ship date — Priya over Slack in March, Dana by email in April. You approve the list. Nothing goes out without you seeing exactly who is about to hear from your product, and why.
The correction, in your name
Then it circles back to each of them, in your name, with the shape a good correction has always had: here is what I told you, here is what’s true now — citing the fresh line, with the dates on the record. A changelog post in a channel reaches whoever happens to be looking that day; this goes as a direct note to the specific people holding the stale claim.
The receipt line at the bottom — told March 4, corrected today — is the part we care most about, because it changes what receiving an answer means. Everyone a Deputy teaches hears the promise up front: if this answer changes, I’ll let you know. People calibrate how much to trust an answer partly on whether anyone would ever tell them it went stale. Once the correction is reliable, an answer stops being a snapshot that starts rotting on delivery and becomes something closer to a subscription to the truth of that question.
Answers with a warranty
This piece closes a loop the rest of this blog has been walking around. Answers cite the line they stand on; new knowledge lands as a diff you approve; unknowns escalate instead of improvising; and when an approved diff invalidates something already said, the people who heard it get corrected, with receipts. Each rule covers the gap the previous one opens. Together they add up to the property we actually wanted from the start: your briefing doesn’t rot, and neither do the answers that came from it.
An answer worth giving is worth standing behind after it changes.
Join the waitlistWe'll let you know the moment Deputy's open to you.
Or ask the live Deputy on the landing page